The Electoral Suicide Bill
December 17th, 2007 at 1:49 pm by David Farrar 
The latest advertisement from John Boscawen is above as an image. The link below takes you to an 800KB pdf of it. It ran in the Sunday Star-Times.
Do Labour, the Greens, United Future and NZ First really want to be explaining next year why Tim Shadbolt has gone to jail for sticking up for his constituents in Southland by running advertisement ten months before the election. Do they think there is any way they can overcome the symbolism of that? Sure there are grounds to disagree about whether the ads he ran in December would infringe, but there is no doubt his ads planned for early next year will run afoul as they will call for the Government to be brought down.
It is no coincidence that those parties supporting the Electoral Finance Bill are well down in the polls. Now they can gamble that the issue will fade, but that is a very risky gamble.
Related posts:
- Growing confusion over Electoral Finance Bill
- Human Rights Commission on Electoral Finance Bill
- Anderton and Dunne get it wrong on Electoral Finance Bill
- Hager on Electoral Finance Bill
December 17th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Well you can be sure that the 9th floor will not lay a complaint against Tim, and if he is anti-government it is unlikely that the right will either unless someone wants to turn Tim into a martyr for the sake of democracy, truth and the NZ way.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
David, if John Boscawen has so much money to throw around why hasn’t he bothered to get some decent creative together? These ads are just appalling in their execution. Too dense, too complicated, and far too many words.
Iwi/Kiwi it ain’t. Where’s John Ansell when you need him?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
It’s a pretty long bow to draw to say that Tim’s adverts were electioneering rather than issue based advertising. The EFB was specifically changed in the Select Committee to cut out references to issue based advertising under the definition of an election advertisement.
[DPF: Frog - I actually agree with you on the ads run in December. But Tim has made very clear the ads next year will advocate directly against the Government and be caught, and as he will spend over $120K he will presumably be charged with a corrupt practice with a maximum two year jail term]
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Given the recent polls there will be a lot of soul searching going on, who will crack?. And even if the bill passes the orders from the 9th floor to the puppets in the police will be to give a lot of latitude to anyone transgressing in the next 11 months. It will be like the smacking bill, not a lot will happen till these evil bastards have a mandate for another three years. Then the shit will hit the fan and this country will become a totalitarian hell hole.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
You are right Tane
Vote:Lets put bells and whistles on it, just like some nice WFF advertising.
Maybe John could get Father Christmas to do a mail drop as well
December 17th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Now you are going to see how it works….Shadbolt will not be prosecuted, the Police will decide it is not in the “public interest”.
The State loves laws that it can use arbitrarily…..as “needed”.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Tane:
Perhaps John actually wants to get a message across rather than simply create a slogan. He probably gets more for his money by using this sort of ad rather than support some overcharging agency.
It also appears to be working. Rather a different approach to Camp Leader King’s ‘don’t worry about it, common sense will prevail’.
Perhaps more NZers than the government anticipated actually want to see some detail, now that it is no longer just a beltway issue.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Already there is talk that Tim won’t be caught because it will be rate payers’ money – oops! a loophole already: one They have had to find . . .
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I quite liked blogblog’s take on Boscawen’s last effort, which pleaded hysterically, ‘Answer My Question, Prime Minister!’
Yep, he’s like Dad4Justice with money:
http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/517/
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
linkwhore!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
shoot the message? – no.
shoot the messenger? – no.
shoot the messengers’ advisors’ designers’ manager? – Yup
comedy gold!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Na KK, I just think if you’re going to spend money on advertising you want to do it right. It costs just as much to print a crap ad as it does to print a good one.
david, I don’t write for blogblog, I just think they do some neat stuff.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
tane, fair enough.
on the subject of ‘too many words’ could we get your Labour masters to perhaps crayon up a quick sketch of the EFB? that document is a literary albatross, and i think some nice pictures, diagrams etc would help.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
“Too dense, too complicated, and far too many words.”
about 1600 words too many eh Tane
How about
The Electorial………………………………………..at the above address.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Tane and the other Socialists are just running scared of the latest polls Surprising really cause as DPF can verify I posted in August that by year end the Nats would be over the 50 points and the Socialists would be low to mid 30s. And that JK would lead Crazy in the preferred stakes.
The big bonus for me is that The Communist Party of Aoteoroa is headed for obilvion Wunderbar!!!!!!!!!!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
The problem with opposition to this bill is that it cannot be turned into a slogan, simply because the reach of this bill is so complex. Even the poor lads at the Standard, like Tane and Philip John and Sam Dixon doesn’t even understand the Electoral Finance Bill properly.
So to effectively show how insidious it is and what effect it will have and how the Labour Party, the Greens and New Zealand First combined to rort our electoral system in their favour one needs to use a number of words.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Slogan: It’s illegal because it’s wrong, not wrong because it’s illegal.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Ok, god help me.
Mr. Boscowen – do you really think the average kiwi wants to read that the world is ending because he/she wont be able to spend more than 120k next year on election spending?
Maybe you have tapped into the wrong audience – don’t you think this should have been put in the business round table’s weekly newsletter?
That would give the rich folk like yourself something to read about while you take your 15 minute morning tea break, over tea and scones. Of course before your boss says – get back to work.
The average kiwi won’t have 10k to spend on election advertising, let alone 120k.
But then again, the average kiwi sees democracy about ideas, not money!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
When Shadbolt is jailed, should we :1) get Amnesty International involved?
2) Have NZ’s own first-time “storming of the Bastille”?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
You are so full of hate James, it is clouding your already questionable judgement.
You dont speak for the average New Zealander, they can speak for themselves. For now.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Slogan:
LABOUR’S STARSHIP LEGISLATION
Oops, it leaves out the Greens and a couple of others . . . start again
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
James Sleep, you don’t seem to have learned anything from John Ansell’s kind essay the other day. keep right on with the politics of “slag the rich bloke” and you’ll end up with the same result as every other time the same thing has been tried: no “rich people”, no “moderately well off” people, no “adequately fed” people either. all gloriously EQUAL in poverty and starvatio.
Sigh.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
“But then again, the average kiwi sees democracy about ideas, not money!”
Oh grow up.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Oh grow up.
Kimble, James Sleep is 16 years old. You’re a grown man and yet you engage in childish fearmongering like:
“You dont speak for the average New Zealander, they can speak for themselves. For now.”
Spare us the drama, you know very well free speech is not under attack. What’s at stake here is the right of powerful interests to spend as much as they like in parallel campaigns that undermine the party spending cap. It has nothing to do with the average New Zealander.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Tane
Perhaps it is you who should think a bit about your age.
Jimmy Sleep is cut a fair amount of slack by most who post here simply because of his age, however there is a limit.
In reality it is a case of if he wants to play with the big boys there is the very real chance he is going to get hurt.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
“What’s at stake here is the right of powerful interests to spend as much as they like in parallel campaigns that undermine the party spending cap.”
1. I didnt bring up the “average New Zealander”, Sleep did, so stick that up your arse.
2. I have always said there should be limits, most people here have.
3. Show me where the spending by third parties has ever been a danger to democracy.
4. How powerful are these powerful interests? Are you sure it isnt you fuckers that are engaging in fear mongering with imaginary rich boogey men?
5. If that is the intention of the bill, why does it fail to do that? Shouldnt it be scrapped untill it does?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
James sleep should take a few lessons off Callum Mc Petrie as a study of being young and still having an influencing voice with adults.
The key is having a mature and open minded respect of events as they happen with a likewise mature and consistent dialogue.
What James Sleep consists of is one eyed, predictable, shallow shite with no grounds for enthusiasm, intensity or interest.
Why does Callum attract positive adult feedback whilst James alienates.
Is James a brainwashed product of the communist manifesto?
Or should that be a statement rather than a q.
They’re both 14, yet one seems 10 yrs older in his statements.
I can see that one getting votes sometime in the future for a party likely to aspire up the polls in the wake of a complete labour shambles.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
James Sleep young fellow: you are being duped by the old farts of NZ’s leftist establishment. Sneak the following forbidden books into your bedroom and read them surreptitiously after lights out, and REBEL! REBEL! REBEL!
1) David Horowitz: “Left Illusions”
2) Milton Friedman: “Free to choose”
3) P.J. O’Rourke: “Eat the Rich”
4) P.J. O’Rourke: “On The Wealth of Nations”
I could suggest a lot more. The above 4 are much more easy reads than Hayek, Von Mises, Schumpeter, and so on. ALL P.J O’Rourke’s stuff is good and in a humourous vein, even his work on Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”. Schumpeter discusses Marxist economics in quite some depth if you are already that advanced.
IF you HAVEN’T ALREADY READ “Animal Farm” by George Orwell, DO SO as a matter of urgency.
It may sound like anathema, but read Richard Prebbles’s “I’ve been thinking” and Roger Douglas’s “Completing the circle”.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Tane is a complete *#@!^#*#*!!@%+
Helen Custers last stand is being desperately held by Tane who having used up all ammunition is now forced to use buckwheat and fire wildly around in the sky trying to scare the punters with issues such as the amount of words in an advert -
WHILE EVERYONE ELSE -
IS RAPIDLY LOSING THE FREE RIGHT TO DO AN AD AT ALL !!!!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
James Sleep: The average kiwi won’t have 10k to spend on election advertising, let alone 120k.
What happens when a group like Green Peace wants to campaign against a proposed Labour party policy in 2008 that will be damaging to the environment and wishes to spend more than $120,000 on that?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Thanks to this bill, a guy I work next to is, right now, enrolling to vote. He is enrolling specifically to vote National specifically so Labour will be voted out of power.
Vote:He normally does not enrol, and does not vote, he is very apathetic in that regards but just from this issue he is getting off his butt, going to the internet and enrolling.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Next year is going to be great for sport. Someone on our side may just lodge complaints to the Police and others about transgressing electoral advertisements. The system will be tested. This government will not survive.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
So if this bill is about protecting us against people buying elections, then logically, either:
(a) Labour bought the last three elections, or
(b) we don’t need this bill.
Which is it?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I thought I saw somewhere last week that James Sleep was opposed to the EFB.
Has he reverted to favouring it or did I have a Senior Moment?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Milo
It has been said elsewhere that the amount Labour pilfered from the public purse, plus its WFF and Student Loan advertising was far far greater than the Exclusive Brethren and National Party spending.
So in summary – under no circumstances should people spend their own money while it is okay to indulge in rampant pillaging of public money.
How soon before they are below 30 in the polls – roll on the day!!!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Now I’m just going to have to consider starting a political part too. Won’t be too fussy about issues, so long as they’re against this government or lackys. We could oblige anyone who wants to spend. The new law allows a lot of scope for creative spending.
Like the Boscawen add too. It was to the point. If you couldn’t read it perhaps you shouldn’t be voting.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
“How soon before they are below 30 in the polls ”
The test will be in the proximity of the elections.
Labour will probably get a surge in the polls getting closer to them.
I don’t think that will be a true reflection and their polls will drop dramatically in the second half of next year. At this time if John Key is preferred PM, it will be obvious long before election night.
Unfortunately, we are going to be drawn right out to a November election.
Fortunately, Labour is not going to gamble with any more major initiatives before the election.
Positive, positive, don’t rock the boat and tax cut bribes will all be the themes. Michael Cullen will be positively beaming non stop.
I predict a trend in moustaches in the Labour camp come 2009.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
James sleep on while the wovles are quietly padding around your igloo.
When you grow up and realise that you have duped,
Vote:Helen will be in the United Nations keeping them pacifist and powerless, Winny will be in a pensioner flat sitting in front of a mirror,
The greens will have left the country because Helens record of speaking so much about doing so little will be completely embarrassing for you seeing as you supported them shafting you ,
Oharia-Belmont will be National,
Taito will have been exonerated and be the MP for Mangere,
John Key will be running the country for his second term,
Phil Goff will be thinking of remaining the Leader of the opposition for his second three years,
Rodney Hide will be coleader of act with Heather Roy,
The Maori Party will be actively promoting self awareness for disadvantaged Maori youth and teaching them Tangata Whenua etc etc,
Jim Anderton will be in a rest home wondering why he is there.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
been duped-sorry
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Jim Anderton is in a rest home wondering why he is there.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
James Sleep As a Socialist supporter how do you square the philsophy of the Partys founders with that we nowhave four classes as regards the democractic process.
1. The encumbent main party of the government
2. Other parties represented in the Parliament
3. Indiviuals or groups of individuals who have registered under the EFB.
4. Individuals or groups who have not registered.
And each has a different entitlement to the amount it can legally spend on promoting its ideas and advertising itself.
As 1984 says All pigs are born equal. But some grow up more equal than others.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Tane said:
“What’s at stake here is the right of powerful interests to spend as much as they like in parallel campaigns that undermine the party spending cap.”
Yeah true.
Rich Pricks! Rich Pricks! Rich Pricks!
Scumbags, Scumbags, Scumbags.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
BREAKING NEWS: The Government is about to announce a $200 million-plus funding package for Eden Park rugby stadium.
Smoke screen for the passing of the EFB?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
gd – I have said to you before,
If you want me to answer a question, then please clean up your posts so they are coherent.
Thank you.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
This is just the beginning.
Labour wants to anethnatise us all over Christmas
while it does dirty, dirty work
eeewwwww
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
All this effort to help a cult, strange.
Vote:I notice that the Australians are looking to see
if the EB mob broke the anti-terrorism law on
finance.
Big boys games, big boys rules
December 17th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
gd: Its “The Animal Farm’ not “1984″ but they are both by George Orwell.
I think an interesting point has been made on this thread, and that is that we can expect Labour’s prejudices to determine who will be prosecuted under the new Electoral regime and who won’t be.
The whole point of the EFB was to stop the EB. My guess is that even if the EB follow the law to the letter they will still be subject to considerable harassment and the risk of Police Raids based on the “suspicion” of an “intent” to Commit an illegal practice.
Vote:Meanwhile the “law of commonsense” will apply to the government’s allies and a blind-eye will be turned to any questionable activity by the Trade Unions.
I think it is important that any activity by “lackies” of Labour, The Greens, NZF and UF are reported immediately to the Chief Electoral Officer to to enable him/her to apply the law.
I believe it will only be when the force of this legislation is felt by the activists of the left that they will suddenly wake up to the idiocy that they have been party to!
December 17th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Correct. Labour are keen for as much interpretability in its laws so that they can be manipulated to punish dissent while affording supporters plenty of latitude. We may not live in a police state today, but – no pun intended – fuzzy laws will help the government move us there.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
James Sleep: The average kiwi won’t have 10k to spend on election advertising, let alone 120k.
Unlike gd, I don’t need to clean up my posts if one looks at your criteria for an answer. So, my question to you remains.
What happens when a group like Green Peace wants to campaign against a proposed Labour party policy in 2008 that will be damaging to the environment and wishes to spend more than $120,000 on that?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Shit at 16 you can pack rape girls ,tane .James Sleep is labour and gives it so he has to take it. ,kids of 16 rape and murder these days , so toughen up tane and stop protecting posters ,who are the strange soft handed left.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Each of the people involved registers as a third party.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
john – come on mate, you can do better than that!
Why don’t you debate the issue up for discussion.
You seem to be going a little off topic.
Or do you have nothing to say?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
James Sleep: Each of the people involved registers as a third party.
So you are suggesting that all the members of Green Peace must register as a third party and run a single campaign with spending from each member?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
James,
Get your head around the fact that one small piece of Labour’s electioneering publicity spend in 2005 was the pledge card and it cost $800,000 and change.
Now please do us a favour and reconsider your perspective on money, values and what you get for it before making yourself look silly with your obviously skewed worldview.
I’m not sure if you are measuring things from the value of a paper round but it sure comes across that way!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Larry Williams on ZB was just having a chuckle about an upcoming talk-fest where the Electoral Commission will tell political parties what the EFA will mean – including the political parties who are going to pass it into law tomorrow. I always thought that the politicians WERE the lawmakers – how naive of me!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
James Sleep Says:
December 17th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Each of the people involved registers as a third party.
I say – and what is stopping the Exclusive Bretheren from doing the same thing… common sense?? fundamentally flawed legislation that doesn’t even serve the purpose it was written for, yet restricts my freedom in the process. nice one Labour.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Dear John Boscowan
You may have noticed that I am having trouble getting rid of some “hot” money.
Any chance you could use $158k without any strings attached.
Yours sincerely
Winston
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
So James, you are saying that individual members of Greenpeace will be able to register as third parties. To my mind, the only reason to do that would be so that they could spend more money. And darn it, here I was, thinking that you had said that elections shouldn’t be bought, that “big money” was evil, and that John Key was a “rich prick” (ok, it was Cullen who said that, but I know that you agreed with him!) – I thought your motives were pure, and untainted by the Almighty Dollar; so what a let-down to find that you are just another capitalist swine!!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
My understanding was that a group of people registering individually and running the same campaign was worked into the Bill. But, I’ve not checked that. However, it does seem to go against the basic principle of getting money out of the Elections, so James’ suggestion doesn’t quite work for me.
So, repeat the question.
How can a third party group like Greenpeace spend more than $120,000 for the entirety of an election year if they take a stance for or against a policy as put forth in an election year?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
The question is why should they be allowed to, and not the Exclusive Bretheren – or is this Bill selective in its common sense?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Can anyone point me to the part in the Bill (or perhaps it is in one of the ammendments?) where the idea of issues based advertising is dealt?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Read the amended bill
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Which section pertains to this, James?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
james, I think the words you were looking for were “I don’t know”. Those words or silence would have been best. “Read the amended bill” is pretty unhelpful to an otherwise polite request
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
“john – come on mate, you can do better than that!
Why don’t you debate the issue up for discussion.
You seem to be going a little off topic.
Or do you have nothing to say?”
Thats very rich coming from sleep, his first post was basically a personal attack on John Boscawen which didnt really seek to start a good arguement and the rest have just been attempted one line comebacks.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
That’s not very helpful of you James – I have read it, and was very concerned about the vagueness and breadth of part 5(1)(ii). there is nothing about issues based advertising in the whole of section 5 where I would expect it to be – hence my call for help.
So, could you be a dear and point me to it…
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Jimmy Boy
I think you are surrounded. Good idea at this stage is to hand the spade back and stop digging.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
James – do you think it might be in the area of the Bill that the Electoral Commission is having to convene a meeting to explain the intent? Oh, by the way, the meeting is for political parties, including the ones who have voted for the EFB to date, and who will pass it into law tomorrow. You know, those political parties who are supporting legislation when they don’t know what it means. I don’t know about you, but I don’t really think that it’s a good idea to pass a law when you have no idea what it means and how it will work.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Inventory 2
Utu is the main driver with Klark steering. Good reason has nothing to do with this insult on our lost in WW1 & WW2.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
James, clearly you didn’t learn anything from our hour long chat last night.
You never really grsped the concept that there is no such thing as a level playing field so to legislate to try to create such a thing is impossible.
In order to assist you with you low learning I’ll use my Rugby analogy again.
Now everyone would acknowledge that the All Blacks have the best scrum in th world. If the sporting equivalent of the Electoral Finance Bill was in place then the All Blacks would be forced to use golden oldies scrums because that would “level the playing field”, the same goes for line outs, we will apply a height restriction so that tall players can’t leap out of all proportion to short players. I think you should get the picture after a second telling of that tale.
Oh and you never did provide even one example from any democracy where money has “bought” an election ever. As proof that it doesn’t I give you Ross Perot.
Now why don’t you do what I suggested last night and research outside of the memo you from Helen on the talking points re: EFB….oh and go read the bill as well, clearly you are having a comprehension problem.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Is James S really James S or is he sonic , is sonic on holiday , Lets guess his new name ,tane ,sleep, or the other left wing posters who are on the way out,,james we must chat one of these day ie the evening the witch concides , next years election and Mr Key a man of honour leads us
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
James Sleep:
Ok, unsuprisingly you’re getting a lot of stick, but I’ll try and make a constructive contribution.
It’d help if you debated the EFB using more than simplistic slogans and irrelevant ad hominen attacks. From what I’ve seen, most of your contributions (on this and previous threads) fall into this category. Surely you can do better?
Then, to succeed in your argument, you have to do the following:
(1) clearly articulate all of the EFB’s objectives;
(2) show specifically how each of those objectives is achieved in the Bill (as amended).
(3) address the possibility that the EFB, in trying to achieve those objectives, either doesn’t achieve them at all or alternatively creates other categories of legal mischief.
Also, I’ve yet to see an EFB supporter convincingly defend the substance, convincingly defend the legislative process, and convincingly argue there’s no unintended legal mischief in the fine print.
What do you say?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
This is what I was trying to discover as well, POC. James is clearly in touch with the Labour hierarchy and seems to be a young man who takes an interest in these things. I was hoping he could clarify that one point. Or perhaps ask Helen Clark or Michael Cullen when he next speaks to them.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
James has told me he talks to “Horse” Cullen all the time.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I am very happy with the ads I have run and I am very grateful to the people who have helped me prepare (and fund) them.
I had been optimistic that the government and its support parties would have backed down by now and followed the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission…..either by withdrawing the bill or putting it out for a furthur round of public consultation. It now looks as though that is unlikely to happen and as such I am committed to campaigning against the bill until the election.
I intend to focus on the facts.
After Christmas I am prepared to spend the following ten months travelling around the country speaking to whoever will listen.
I think it was James Sleep who asked who can afford to spend $12,000 running a campaign, little lone $120,000. Winston Peters said something similiar last Friday at a Greypower meeting in Nelson. I think New Zealanders derseve better than that, particularly from a sitting MP, and I intend to point that out next year ( because I agree with Helen Clark there is not a high level of undestanding about this bill)
The reality is that this bill affects every single New Zealander. This bill applies to groups, just as much as much as it does to individuals. If the Sensible Sentencing Trust want to post a letter to every single household in the country highlighting the voting record of MPs they will be caught. This is because their ad is likely to be couched in such a way that it will be obvious what group of MPs vote in such a way to support the stand of the SST, and which do not. Because of this, it will imply support or opposition for a particular party. I believe to suggest that “issue” advertising is somehow exempt as The Greens try to is not telling the full story.
Once the SST spend their $120,000 in this way they will be unable to spend anymore legally. By far the vast majority of the financial supportters of SST are small donors, and many belong to Greypower. People who support the objectives of the SST will be denied the chance to express their view.
I say that of course subject to loopholes being found, and I am told there are many. However one of the reasons the HRC opposed this bill was because the Commision wanted New Zealanders to be encouraged to participate in elections, rather than have restrictions placed in their way.
More importantly what the bill does is to prevent messages getting to us. The government is trying to censor the messages we hear in election year, and gag the parties trying to talk to us.
The HRC agrees some restrictions are reasonable, but not for up to eleven months. I beleive more and more ” Green Party ” supportters will ask their MPs next year why they were prepared to support this. Even the Electoral Commission said that if there were to be financial limits they should be set at $240,000. Why do the Green MPs believe the censorship should be twice as strict, and for up to three time longer?. I am certainly going to ask that question next year ( frequently).
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Whaleoil -
“James has told me he talks to “Horse” Cullen all the time.”
Please – do not tell porkys.
I have never said I speak to him ‘all the time’
I have only spoken to him 3-4 times, if that.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
John if it doesnt fit on a bumper sticker no one on the Left will have the patience to read it. They have even said so above.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
James, shall I post our conversations up for all to see who is telling the porkies….
You always name drop and just the other day even said
“James: Dam u
lol
Ill just ask Uncle Mike
haha”
and what about
Vote:“James: Na
im doing that through a new youth non-partisen organisation
I was just at the house and Michael Cullens strolls up to me asking me all about it”
December 17th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
James Sleep:
Any chance of you responding to my 6:06 post? You’re not running scared are you?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
“I am very happy with the ads I have run and I am very grateful to the people who have helped me prepare (and fund) them.”
Pffft
Do you really think people would read a block of black and white print with like what – 2000 words?
I don’t think so.
I agree with Tane – where is John Ansell when you need him.
You surely consulted him in the essay writing department.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Nah he was probably doing a shift at KFC.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Don’t worry Kimble going by the latest polls about 55% of NZers are now right of centre and therefore probably at least moderately intelligent.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
What you’re saying James is, that after 8 years of Labour destroying our education standards most people can’t read.
Vote:Well you’re wrong those of us over 25 still can!
December 17th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
“Don’t worry Kimble going by the latest polls about 55% of NZers are now right of centre ”
Thats a powerful statistic, but how confused are the masses going to be if John Keys doesn’t pull the EFB as promised.
Bits and pieces perhaps, But I doubt the entirety.
The q is, why is Labour so impassioned by a bill that is likely to spell their death knell. Because they know the bill will never be relegated to history??
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
“James, shall I post our conversations up for all to see who is telling the porkies….
You always name drop and just the other day even said
“James: Dam u
lol
Ill just ask Uncle Mike
haha”
and what about
“James: Na
im doing that through a new youth non-partisen organisation
I was just at the house and Michael Cullens strolls up to me asking me all about it” ”
You can post as much of this stuff as you like.
I know the truth and in what way I put it.
I do know that I said the following:
I was just at Parliament and Michael Cullen strolled up to me asking me about the day” ”
Whale oil – I said that in relation to question about Youth Organised and United’s trip to Wellington and the success we got. I was highlighting the support we are getting from politicians – and in fact huge support from Michael Cullen.
If you have a problem with that – deal with it.
So please, cry me a river.
I understand with people like Cameron Slator – its very easy to take people out of context
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Great personal attack there James. Is this the guy who always tells people to engage in rational debate?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Michael Cullens: Comrade James, I want you to infiltrate that new organisation, whats it called, oh yes YOU and turn it into a Labour mouthpiece for election year. Your deputy emperor commands you.
James Sleep: Yes oh Lord of Socialism, the process has already begun…
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Nick:
Well, here’s the thing: James clearly doesn’t want to engage in rational debate. If he did, I’d surely have received his response to my 6:06 post by now.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Oh dear, James, the point is you name drop and use familiarities like you know these guys, that isn’t out of context, in fact quite in context for the point I was making.
Never mind my little padowab, one day you will learn. Read the article I sent you, I wrote it for you.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
James Sleep:
“Do you really think people would read a block of black and white print with like what – 2000 words?”
I have.
Vote:I care about our democracy.
What an arrogant, offensive little turd you are.
James, is it for mandatory for socialists to have a frontal lobotomy?
December 17th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Haha – nice article, no I do not name drop.
Ive done it a few times – in context and relevance.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
“James, is it for mandatory for socialists to have a frontal lobotomy?”
Not mandatory WebWrat, but that didnt stop James.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
“Do you really think people would read a block of black and white print with like what – 2000 words? I don’t think so. I agree with Tane.”
Like I said, if it doesnt fit on a bumper sticker no one on the Left will have the patience to read it.
Anyway, dont most newspapers have blocks of black and white print of around 2000 words? Isnt that why people buy them?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
James, what about Greenpeace? Seriously man, I want to know which clause you say will make it possible. I’ve not seen one yet, but it would be interesting to be proven wrong on that score.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
James Sleep:
Once again you completely miss the point. Whether people choose to read John Boscawen’s advertisement is entirely their prerogative. I’m quite capable of making my own mind up, without your self-appointed censorship, thank you. If John Boscawen spends money on a message that’s ineffective (in your view), what’s the problem? Why the need to regulate the message?
In fact, James, can you debate the EFB at all beyond cheap slogans and simplistic arguments? Yet again, I’m still waiting for a considered response to my earlier post. And your non-response (so far) is illuminating.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
POC:
The short answer is no
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
P O C,,
I think it’s past James bed time.
he’s had tea and cuddled up with his teddy bear.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
“Can anyone point me to the part in the Bill (or perhaps it is in one of the ammendments?) where the idea of issues based advertising is dealt?
“I have read it, and was very concerned about the vagueness and breadth of part 5(1)(ii). there is nothing about issues based advertising in the whole of section 5 where I would expect it to be”
Sam – Yes, I have read over part 5(1)(ii)
There is nothing in this legislation that talks about issue campaigns – I could be corrected.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
It’s worth reminding ourselves that James Sleep’s idea of “rational debate” is this – see DPF’s anguish on that thread – 10 December at 11:22pm. How much slack does one cut for a 16 year old who defames others when he gets bored?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Look please – I defamed my MP – again,
cry me a river
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
“There is nothing in this legislation that talks about issue campaigns – I could be corrected.”
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2007/12/15/are-tim-shadbolts-ads-caught-by-the-efb/
Well James tried to pull his head in by saying something intelligent, unfortunatly it didnt work. Yes James issues advertising is exempt. Perhaps you should get Aunty Helen to read the bill to you as a bedtime story, that way some of it might actually sink in.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Please – I defamed my MP – again,
cry me a river
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
James Sleep:
You’re quite the village idiot. DPF, as the host of this blog, can unwittingly be dragged into defamation lawsuits. But perhaps that doesn’t bother you terribly.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
As someone who has vehemently opposed (and still opposes) the EFB and as someone who’s designed / produced a fair number of politically-oriented advertisements across print, radio, TV and the net, I do wonder about the effectiveness of this ad, and the similar ones that have gone before it.
Kiwibloggers aren’t a representative cross-section of the NZ populace. By definition we’re more interested and involved in politics than most, since we come here to debate it for a fair portion of our day.
Sure we’d happily read that ad. But how many other people would devote a sizeable chunk of their Sunday to reading it as opposed to playing with the kids, going for a walk round the harbour, kicking a footy round etc.
Which is a pity, because the contents need to be read. Agreed it’s a complex topic but even layout could improve readability. Maybe even an illustration or two. And there’s tricks to making a punter want to read a text-heavy ad, like running “teasers” through earlier parts of the paper.
My hat’s off to John Boscawen for making the effort and I understand that fancy pants designers usually charge way more than they’re worth. So if it’s a matter of budget and manpower, my services are available to any anti-EFB campaign pro bono. You just have to ask.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Pascal said “James, what about Greenpeace? Seriously man, I want to know which clause you say will make it possible. I’ve not seen one yet, but it would be interesting to be proven wrong on that score.”
Pascal – James won’t answer until he’s been to the Electoral Commission’s seminar – you know the one? The one where they will tell MP’s just what it is that they voted for, ‘cos a whole lot of them are going to vote the EFB into law tomorrow, but they won’t actually know what it all means until the Electoral Commission tells them – some time in the New Year – so they’ll all just have to hope they haven’t done anything illegal eh! That kind of lawmaking REALLY gives you confidence in the government eh!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
James
You are sixteen, I cannot for the life of me see what enjoyment you get out of politics at your age.
You should be out chasing girls (or boys if you are a rainbow member)
I think it is incredibly sad that you are wasting your youth like this, a sixteen year old should be exploring life, questioning all they see and wringing every last drop out of what can be a special time in ones life.
You seem to be brainwashed, you are incapable of an original thought and frankly I am worried that you enjoy spending so much time around the house with much older men, do you parents know what you get up to?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
We must remember this bill is about election spending.
This will not stop any person at any time saying what they like.
It is when money is involved to influence voters to vote for one or more “specified” parties.
Read part 5 of the EFB and you will find that no one will be limited on spending money on issue based campaigns.
Remember – this bill has been amended – the only problem is that the National party won’t be able to spend the 5 mil they have sitting in their back account!
I go back to the old saying – democracy is about ideas not money.
I will continue to say that.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
For me this was a wonderful ad.
It takes a half-page in a newspaper and fills it. Not with a slogan, but a series of arguments – with factual statements that are accurate (unfortunately the last ad had a few inaccuracies).
If only all opposition to the EFB was this considered. If only all support for the EFB was this considered. If only all political debate was this considered.
Here’s something I disagree with. Here’s what it does. Here’s what’s wrong with it. Here’s what someone else has said. Here’s what you can do if you’re concerned too…
Brilliant.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I have read John Boscowen’s adverts, albeit they are text heavy and somewhat turgid, but they do make his point.
It is possible to get points across graphically and with a simple tagline, a good example was the famous Saatchi & Saatchi ad for the UK Conservatives , with a long line of people and the tag “Labour is not working” which got a critical message across
Re issues based advertising I think Shadbolt is still caught whatever the GReens try and say.
If ‘acceptable’ third parties are not prosecuted and others eg EB are or are not then the law is brought into disrepute and it should not have been passed. Laws which rely on interpretation, prejudice and politicised agencies to enforce them are dangerous, bad law and the slippery slope to perdition.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Rex:
“But how many other people would devote a sizeable chunk of their Sunday to reading it as opposed to playing with the kids, going for a walk round the harbour, kicking a footy round etc.”
So they buy a rag to read on Sunday but they haven’t got 2 minutes to spare to read the one bit that will inform them about the dismantling of our democracy. If that is the case, I guess they deserve to end up wearing grey uniforms and little caps with stars on them.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
James Sleep:
Once again you prove my point: you’re apparently incapable of debating the EFB beyond cheap slogans and simplistic arguments.
And once again, James, I challenge you to scroll up to my 6:06 post. It raises a fairly meaty question that can’t be answered by a cheap slogan or a simplistic argument. Is that why you can’t bring yourself to respond to it?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“the National party won’t be able to spend the 5 mil they have sitting in their back account!”
They won’t have to!!
Labours practically won National the election.
Besides,, Labours broke,, financially, morally and integrally.
Labour doesn’t believe in your theory either, that democracy is not about money. They’re passing a bill so parties can’t spend money cause they know advertising costs money.
and if democracy is about ideas, they don’t like any one elses ideas.
and made a bill against every one elses ideas.
In fact, Labour just doesn’t like democracy at all.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“I go back to the old saying – democracy is about ideas not money.”
So James, would you have John Boscawen sent to jail for running his little add campaign, because thats exactly what would happen if he did what he is doing now next year. Do you think that Johns campaign is anti-democratic? Do you think jail is a worthy punishment for the horrible crime John is commiting in our daily newspapers.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
WebWrat – Rex has a valid point.
The thing that anyone in politics has to battle against is apathy.
Although everyone on here and in the political world are very involved and interested – the average kiwi is not.
So I think putting the issue behind us on this one, any political message needs to be catchy if you want to grab the attention of the apathetic demographic.
Rex – good comment btw, you are right.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
“I go back to the old saying – democracy is about ideas not money.”
As hinamanu points out, Labour doesnt agree with that idea at all. In fact it is passing a law that will allow it to take as much TAXPAYERS MONEY as it wants to help it win the next election. If you dont believe read this post by DPF, explaining how they plan to do it:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/the_cunning_plan_to_exempt_parliamentary_spending.html
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
I know it wont fit on a bumper sticker but its well worth the read.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
James Sleep
You still have not answered Peak Oil.
Your 8.22 comment is really rather poor. I for one do not appreciate the implication that there is a somehow different political world in which a superior being exists.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
James Sleep:
“I go back to the old saying – democracy is about ideas not money.”
But James, democracy is our idea.
Vote:Your ideas killed 100 million people over the last hundred years or so and took away hope, motivation and ambition of the ones that were left.
I don’t know why people willingly want to go there.
It’s got me buggered.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
“Read part 5 of the EFB and you will find that no one will be limited on spending money on issue based campaigns.”
That is this one right?
“encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for
a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by
reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or
pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is
stated)”
Type of party or for a type of candidate? Described or indicated by reference to views or positions? But of course, it doesnt include views or positions on issues does it?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
“Although everyone on here and in the political world are very involved and interested – the average kiwi is not.”
So James is the point of this bill now to protect New Zealand adults from their own stupidity and voting incompetance? Great to see you have faith in the voting public. That must be how you brush off all the poll result, by saying to yourself; “What do the public know, they are all idiots”.
The thing is that the basic tenant of democracy is that the public will vote wisely and elect the best party who represent the interests of themselfs and their country. If people are constantly electing incompetant governments then that would make democracy a stupid and outdated idea wouldnt it? Must be why you support the dictatorship of the (incredabilly stupid) proletariat.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
James:
“- the average kiwi is not.”
At 16 you know all about the ‘average Kiwi’ huh?
I think
“The Electoral Suicide Bill”
is catchy enough for anyone with an IQ of at least as equal to, or greater than their boot size.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Nick C (7:56) James was responding to a query that I made earlier this afternoon, and essentially agrees with what you wrote.
I disagree however, as I can not find a single reference to anywhere that says issues based advertising is exempt (hence my initial question).
If it is section 5 that you are reading and suggesting allows issues based advocacy through, then you have a vastly different definition to mine… Isn’t that pretty disconcerting for such a significant piece of legislation? It should be spelt out plain and clear, without recourse to lawyers and litigation.
On the other hand, if you are relying on Frogblog for your interpretation, perhaps you need to get out a bit more…
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
So James is the point of this bill now to protect New Zealand adults from their own stupidity and voting incompetance? Great to see you have faith in the voting public. That must be how you brush off all the poll result, by saying to yourself; “What do the public know, they are all idiots”.
Nick C – you have taken me out of context.
I was talking about whether an average kiwi was interested enough to have their attention caught by one of JB’s ads.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Sam – If its not mentioned in the first part of part 5 then consider it left out. Consider it exempt.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Adam Smith:
Don’t worry, I’ve all but given up on James Sleep. He defends the EFB with cheap slogans and simplistic arguments. Anytime he wants to have a rational debate, I’m in. Until then, it’s probably best not to waste valuable internet bandwidth on James. If I were to debate the EFB at his level, I’d say James is the equivalent of a Barbie Doll Boy (ssh, don’t tell Panty Slut Boy) in a big big world. Plastic fantastic and all that.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Passing the Electoral Suicide Bill
tomorrow
will act like rapid-set
cement.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Graeme Edgeler, thanks for your positive feedback on the ad. If the people who helped me with it read your comments, and they probably will, they will have a quiet chuckle I am sure.
For the record it will also be going into tomorrow’s DominionPost. (in its current form). I considered deleting a few paragraphs this afternoon but was persuaded not too by a professional.
In the new year we will be trying to talk to as many different groups of people and we will need to target our communication strategy to each group. I told the Greens co-leader Russel Norman on Friday afternoon that I suspected most “Green” supportters would be intelligent principled people. I am prepared to bet that once they realise that the effect of this bill is to make it much easier for exisiting MPs to be re-elected , and it has been supported in defiance of our own Human Rights Commission they will not be too impressed, although I could easily be wrong.
If the Greens are for free speech in the way they say they are, I would like to think they will not object if I stand outside their regional meetings and conferences distributing factual material. I certainly intend to do a critque of the Green’s press release on the EFB last week, and their comments on so called “issue” advertsing in particular. ( as I will be with Winston’s speech).
Graeme you also made a detailed submission on the bill. It would have taken you several hours, if not days. I suspect like me, you saw yourself as just doing your community service.
However I would like as much help as possible next year, and if Rex Widerstrom you would like to help I would be very grateful for it. Please email me your contact details on john@boscawen.co.nz, and in fact anyone else who wants help please also contact me.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
5(1)(ii) reads:
In this Act, Election Advertisement means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a party or a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated).
This does not exempt issues based advocacy, and in my view, specifically includes it. A public education campaign around any election year topic/policy can reasonably be regarded as persuading/encouraging voters to vote one way or the other, and of course parties or candidates are going to have positions on it. I can’t reconcile how anyone could read the above paragraph and say otherwise (which is why I thought there must have been a more recent ammendment – but apparently not).
Can anyone explain how the above can be interpreted so that issues based advocation is exempt from the Bill – and how exactly that would prevent the EB’s anyway…
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Ban James Sleep or helen clark or whoever this 16yo is , OR ISNT, me thinks, i smell dog shit here and its not under my shoe but the VERY articulated posts from JS or possibly the labour parties propaganda department, james you have school tomorrow,say goodnight to the witch , and peter d and reflect, on truths and lies, and the posting of .
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Sam, without a doubt an advertisement by a lobby group that creates a favourable or unfavourable opinion of an MP or party is caught.
A SST or Family First ad highlighting the voting record of MPs on a particular issue is caught. Simple as that.
One of the objectives of this bill is to gag opposition voices. And for the whole year!
Simple as that.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
John!
Stop this BS.
You know very, very well that this bill will not stop free speech.
Sam – he is incorrect. If I went out with some friends and pamphlet dropped Mt. Roskil against a highway that was going to be build but he govt – I and my friends would not be in the wrong. Pure and simple.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
highway that was going to be build BY THE govt – I will correct myself.
I will eat humble pie.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
james, how’s your response to Peak coming along? it must be quite a missive – it’s taking ages. fair enough though. lots of research and general abandonment of glib cliché will do the debate no end of good.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
James: to which John are you referring. john, or John B?
This bill will impact free speech. Nothing will stop free speech, but it will make people think twice, and worry about participating. The main targets of the bill will not be impacted, because it has all sorts of loopholes and poorly drafted areas that someone with enough money and lawyers could keep tied up in the courts for years.
The average joe who wants to run a small scale campaign will be impacted, they will have to register and fill in all sorts of paperwork. They can’t just get out there and do it anymore. The moderate sized interest group (the AA anyone) who want to run a nation-wide campaign will be limited, and if they aren’t interested in complex legal manouvering, will give up.
The large and rich groups will just hire lawyers, register as political parties, create multiple front organisations and co-ordinate them, and generally exploit loopholes.
The small and feral groups (you know who you are) will just ignore the law, and get away with it.
Net impact: middle NZ excluded from the political debate. Again.
This bill achieves nothing useful, since it doesn’t curtail any behaviour that was causing problems. It does lots of things that aren’t useful. It is bad politics and bad law.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
james, stopping free speech is not a binary risk proposition. it’s a matter of degrees, of restrictive creep… week after week… bill after bill.
either :-
(a) you know this, and are blindly supporting your political idols
Vote:.. or ..
(b) you don’t know this and just need some of life’s wisdom. Such wisdom awaits you i’m sure… if/when you start thinking for yourself.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
John B
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
James – faced with a choice between your hollow words, and those of John Boscowen, who has spent a large stack of his own hard-earned dosh out of the courage of his convictions, guess who’s I’d trust – clue – he’s not a teenager!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Anyone like that abject loser Tane Tutae complaining about the layout of those ads has obviously never read any advertising research, especially that done by David Ogilvy, which showed that dense block of black text on white backgrounds actually ATTRACT readers.
Once again, the Tutae-meister steps in his own doo-doos.
PS How’s this for a laugh (apologies for the link – most of Tim’s support is from outside Southland! Mwwahhhhhhhhahahaha!)
Vote:http://www.friendsofsit.co.nz/messages.htm
December 17th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
I have spend some time reading all the blogs tonight and have one question
Who the feck is James Sleep and does he/her actually exist as a real person.
If so why is he acting like a H2 clone all day?
Jimmy boy prove yourself to be your own man/woman.
To provide this all we need is one unprepared 9th floor crap delivery.
Bet you can’t do that tonight.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Raffles, my dear old thing, I too have wondered about James – but suddenly realised that it’s the school holidays, so we’re stuck with the little blighter until he gets a job.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Any bets on the time our freedom will be taken away from us?
Vote:My bet 4.30PM
Shame on them, Just a disgrace.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
James, so you are suggesting that what John B is publishing is BS? I was happy with the proposition that john was spouting BS (he usually seems to be), but I’m staggered that you can dismiss the reams of information he provided with “BS”. No rebuttal of the points, no explaining of the significant problems with our electoral process that this bill solves, in fact nothing.
Explain why anyone should give that posting any credence? If everything John B is saying is BS, surely you can point to at least one item that is BS? Or is it BS because it doesn’t align with your world-view?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
PaulL:
James is rumoured to be busy researching a detailed contribution to this thread. I’m still waiting – and others are waiting too.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Buggerlugs
Oh dear and with Christmas and all that good will and associated crap.
What have we done to encourage the little fellow
Dear me back to confession.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
POC – I think we’re in for a long night! Or a long wait, at the very least!!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
It is of passing interest that Mr Sleep seems to be so up on legal interpretation of EFB, to the extent that he is clear on what it menas when:
a) Annette King is not
b) the Electoral Commission is not
c) the many wildly differring commentaries indicate that the majority of the so called informed are not
Yet Mr Sleep is the fount of knowledge.
I smell something and it is not fine wine.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Actually James Sleep, even your simplistic example is quite likely to fall in the the ambit of the Electoral Finance Bill if it was in the line of the campaign run against the Wellington ByPass. I.e don’t build roads, cars are bad, Green “type” of policy.
Opposing it because it runs across your vege garden, you might get away with.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Jimmy boy are you there
I need that one sole factual gem of doctrine before you go bye byes
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Just wait until James discovers hip-hop and gangsta rap and then he will be in trouble under the EFB – “Iz gunna pop a cap in Key’s ass…” etc.
Although it does appear his amended version of the Bill is different to everyone else’s version – a bit like comparing the King James Bible with the version written by Anton Szandor LaVey.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
cement. I can smell it. 2008 rapid-set model.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Inventory2:
Oh I’m prepared to generous and give James until, say, 1 January 2008. (James, in case your talking points don’t explain this, that’s when the restricted period starts.)
The funny thing is, James claims to want a reasoned debate, and I do believe I’ve put a very reasonable question to him. It seems to expose James’ hollow slogans, so perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that he’s running scared.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Lest people think I’m being unfair about James Sleep and his talking points, compare James Sleep with Russel Norman. An exact match. And James Sleep, despite his assertions, didn’t own up to his copy-and-paste job until he was called on it.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I did own up – about 5 times on other posts.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Key word, James, is until you were called on it
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
James you’re a troll and admitting to it when caught red handed doesnt make it better.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Oh James, for God’s sake do what other boys your age do. Or do what I did at your age and run amok in a shopping mall with smoke grenades. You need to get out, mate.
(If they don’t have a shopping mall in Masterton, then join a cricket club. All that nervous energy is gonna kill ya)
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
bigbruv, john, Adam you are all on to it, James does breathe and he does look like a college kid I also suspect he is the author of some of the posts, however like you I pick up a whiff of another hand and brain in some of these posts maybe even more than one. Chances are there is adult mischief here somewhere. We will wait and watch.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
kehua – i did note a strange resemblance to sam dickhead a coupla weeks back in james’ posts…you can just see it, can’t you:
Dickhead: “I’ve been banned from kiwiblog.”
Vote:Sleepy: “Wow.”
Dickhead: “What’s your login?”
Sleepy: “Don’t you need to post from my IP address?”
Dickhead: “Nah, Tutae got a new laptop. I can use that.”
Sleepy: “Oh. Isn’t that somehow wrong?”
Dickhead: “We’re fighting the MAN, comrade.”
Sleepy: “Oh, ok then…”
December 17th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
James Sleep:
Any particular reason why you can’t admit to “borrowing” Russel Norman’s talking points – without attribution? I mean, Phillip John/Roger Nome has a reputation for plagarism, so surely we don’t want to lump you into the same category? Ah well… it’s your idea of “rational debate” I guess.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
I did – so please
cry me a river
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Ah… an admission at last.
Now, how’s that answer to my 6:06 post coming along?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
POC – don’t be silly…he can’t get hold of steven price at 11.25pm on a Monday
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Buggerlugs:
What about at 6.06pm? Besides, doesn’t James have access to the Labour Spin HQ?
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Yes, well, Labour spin HQ has been pretty fucking useless since Munro and Lewis left…relying on FTAs and National cock-ups…
sorry – should read VERY fucking useless.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 7:06 am
James Sleep: Read part 5 of the EFB and you will find that no one will be limited on spending money on issue based campaigns.
As has been pointed out to you:
In this Act, Election Advertisement means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a party or a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated).
Now imagine for yourself the Labour party takes a position on a Greenpeace issue. They actively campaign against whaling in our waters. The National Party does the same. The Greens do the same.
Now Greenpeace wants to release a pamphlet in an election year, and communicate with everyone regarding whaling in our waters. Part of their advertisement repeats the various parties’ stances on whaling. They do this because ideally they want to see votes thrown at any of the parties that will support their position against whaling. (And most of them do)
What happens now? Greenpeace cannot spend more than $120,000 on their pamphlet in an election year. Even if a different pamphlet of theirs targets a different group.
Look at another example, the motor vehicle importers. They took the research by the governments’ research arm and saw that it indicated their recent legislative changes would not decrease emissions, but would actually increase them. So, they began a campaign to make people aware of this. Note, their one intention was to make people aware that a bad law was about to be passed. One with good intentions, but one that would achieve the opposite of what it was intended to do. In effect, they were attempting to save lives.
Under the Electoral Finance Bill they would not be allowed to do so. Or rather, they would be allowed to spend only up to $120,000 in an election year. Now do the maths for yourself. Take the number of eligible voters. Take that $120,000. Work out how much they can spend per person.
Now note that is per year. Yes, that is how much anyone who actively either promotes or opposes an issue that a political party has “views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued” on.
Do you see how wide the scope of that is? Do you see how many worthwhile organizations will actually be caught by this dragnet?
And worst of all is that your suggestion earlier, that members of a group should register independantly to be allowed to spend more than $120,000 for the group, is exactly why this bill is fundamentally flawed. Because the religious group demonized by Labour will be able to do exactly as they did before without being affected by this law.
But many charities, social groups and organizations will not be able to continue their operations in an election year.
And that is what you are supporting.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Pascal, that is entirely my interpretation as well. I am still waiting for anyone to rationally debate this, and point to some substance for the latest Greens talking point that somehow issues-based advocacy is exempt. The statement which restricts expression on subjects that “may reasonably be regarded as” referring “to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued” by any political party or candidate is way too broad, and covers way too many issues in election year.
The Act in no way exempts issues based advocacy. If it is intended to, then it should explicitly state this (letting EB’s do as they will). I don’t know about all of the Labour is evil hype around this issue, but I do know that this is shockingly drafted legislation, and I am embarrassed that our executive would even consider passing something that is this bad, and has followed such a terrible process. If Labour think that this is good governance, then I suggest that next year’s election will tell them otherwise – too late for common sense however.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:23 am
I’m not going to do a detailed analysis here now of the notorious election advertising clause. That will wait till it’s passed. However every word of it is designed to enlarge its scope. The choice of words is purposely fuzzy. I know from tax law drafting how we sought to include taxpayers. The same tricks appear again. The words have to be given their plain meaning and plainly they include. If you are electorally advertising under these provisions, which is doing almost anything, then issues are caught. An issue is nothing more than a stated opinion to be set against another position or approach, for or against, and in a political context that becomes an electoral advertisement.
Hopefully the Courts will be generous and seek creative ways to effectively void these provisions or the prosecutors excuse themselves for uncertainty. What sort of creatures have our parliamentarians become when we have to rely on King’s, Laws of Jurisprudence. Elsewhere, the application of law without right or its misapplication or refusal to apply it, is called tyranny. My father’s generation gave their lives so we could live without such.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:26 am
This is the statement that has driven the “exemption of issues related advertising”, from a Greens press release (http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other11407.html):
Amendments to protect freedom of speech
1. Alter the definition of election advertising to protect issues advertising
This means that individuals and groups will be free to campaign on the issues that are important to them, regardless of whether one or more parties is also campaigning on the same issue. The Greens come from a campaigning background and we were determined to protect the right of groups to continue to campaign. For example, Greenpeace can continue to campaign against whaling, even though it is a campaign the Green Party has a profile on.
Unfortunately, nowhere does it state how they achieved this ammendment – is it buried in the bill or in the raft of ammendments happening in parliament? Is it just wishful thinking – just saying it so isn’t going to make it happen 9especially with the current wording of 5(1)(ii)…
Can anyone enlighten me – I can’t register on FrogBlog to ask there for some reason or other…
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Does the Green amendment make a change to the dollar amount they can spend?
So if there is an amendment that achieves that then the Exclusive Brethren will be free to criticize Green Party policies again this year as they did before. Because that is ALL their pamphlet did. The rest was a beatup because the flaws in Green Party policy was exposed. Even their rebuttal of the incident showed that most of what the Brethren said was true or debatably true.
And if Greenpeace or other worthy organizations are not covered by the EFB, then the EB will not be.
Unless the pure aim of this bill is to shut down criticism of the Greens, Labour and NZ First. In which case we know their true colours now.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Pascal, I think that at the end of the day the law will be such a mess that the objectives will not have been achieved other than, and perhaps this was the true objective, demonizing anybody who has money and suggesting that success is evil, unless you vote for Labour, NZF, UF and The Greens.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Sad as it sounds, Adam, that seems to be the case. As a case in point look at the Green party’s smear campaign against John Boscowan.
Rather than debating the issues he raises and offering a constructive input on it, they, in collusion with the Labour party, try to create the “big money bogeyman” image for him.
Is there anyone from the Left of centre who can actually front up and answer the questions so many New Zealanders have on this bill? Or will they simply keep on smearing people who question it and try to demonize them?
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Pascal – anyone who speaks out against the Bill has been smeared as a “bagman” “rich prick” or “EB”. Methinks the supporters doth protest too much, given this really should have been dealing with the theft of $800K last election.
There is no debate from the Left. Just dodgy interpretation and abuse.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
James Sleep
“I go back to the old saying – democracy is about ideas not money”.
FFS James cease with your empty rhetoric. Democracy is about the free expression of ideas. What the EFB is doing is limiting that freedom/right by imposing a financial barrier (money).
If you include “Free expression” in your slogan it might make more sense and enable you to understand why the Bill is unacceptable to so many.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I notice James didnt respond to my post that the EFB creates 4 classes of citizen as regards participation in the democractic process. So much of the founders of the Labour Party believe that all citizens were equal.
Vote:December 19th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Sam – it’s there – it’s the deletion of 5(1)(a)(iii). I believe the Electoral Commission is taking a narrow view of 5(1)(a)(ii) – don’t mention anything like an election or voting, and don’t criticise anyone (e.g. “National” or “the Government”) and nothing should happen.
Emphasise “should”. Who really knows?
Vote: